How to stay green in the red zone
Kent Neilson could not bear the thought of leaving red-zoned Brooklands - so he didn't.
The racehorse trainer was gutted to learn his home of more than 20 years would be written off by the near area-wide red-zoning of the north Christchurch settlement.
In a risky move, Neilson bought a nearby section which remained green because it was zoned rural.
"I wanted to stay in Brooklands. It's nice and peaceful and quiet," he said. "You couldn't buy a section . . . so I had to buy a block of land."
Neilson plans to relocate his existing home and is preparing a resource consent submission. Despite engineering advice supporting the move, there was no guarantee.
His plans included site-specific foundation design and raising the land beyond the flood plain level. "If the council knock me back, I'll be disappointed," he said.
Neilson was planning to build a home on his land when the red-zoning of 417 properties was announced in November 2011.
The slow breakdown of the community since had been tough.
"You get to know everybody. You see them go past and give them a wave, and all of a sudden they've gone everywhere."
He felt the Crown offer for his land - $152,000 - was too low for a riverside property with a beautifully landscaped vista, and considered rejecting it to join the "stayers".
Another 34 Brooklands landowners rejected Crown offers to remain on their red-zoned land. However, their homes are uninsurable, near worthless and under threat of compulsory acquisition by the Government.
Neilson's new plot could have been lost to red-zoning also as the previous owner's plans to rezone it residential were under way when the September 2010 quake struck.
He hopes to have his consent approved before the April 24 deadline to leave his home.
- The Press
Is the mayor correct to put libraries, pools and community facilities ahead of the Town Hall?Related story: (See story)